Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Trevor Marriott]

You abandoned trying to explain why the C5 were not all murdered while prostrate as they had their necks slit (some more than once).

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=462218&postcount=684

All of the C5 are linked by being prostrate before the necks were slit (some more than once)

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=462210&postcount=676

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=462238&postcount=691

You couldn't show examples of any of your claims in criminology. You just abandoned that one also.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=462343&postcount=716

You are trying to sell to people that Mary Jane Kelly was someone's first murder.

I am saying there are aspects of her murder which may suggest she was not killed by the same hand as the others, but I also said that if you take out the the fact that no organs were taken by the killer from any of the victims. it might then link them to one killer. Just depends on which side of the fence you sit. But the Kelly murder has so much more mystery attached to it than any of the answers and throws out more questions than we have answers to

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

All answers in my original post

You abandoned trying to explain why the C5 were not all murdered while prostrate as they had their necks slit (some more than once).

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=462218&postcount=684

All of the C5 are linked by being prostrate before the necks were slit (some more than once)

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=462210&postcount=676

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=462238&postcount=691

You couldn't show examples of any of your claims in criminology. You just abandoned that one also.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=462343&postcount=716

You are trying to sell to people that Mary Jane Kelly was someone's first murder.

[Sam Flynn]

The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

I would point out to Trevor that you originally asked why the killer appeared to position the organs almost ritualistically. That the organs had been placed around the body is undeniable, whether there was any ritual involved or not.

[Trevor Marriott]

The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

I was referring to Chapman and Eddowes only but there is no ritualistic link to any of the bodies, researchers should stop seeing things that are not there to be seen.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

If the killer showed anatomical knowledge but didn't remove any organs from Annie and Kate, what knowledge did he show?

If the killer didnt remove the organs then the anatomical knowledge seen by the doctors at the post mortem was as a result of them being removed at the mortuary before the post mortems by a bona fide medical person acting perhaps unlawfully under the Anatomy Act. These bodies should not have been tampered with but who knows what went on during the 12 hour window when they were left before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

The entrails were not cut from the body, they were simply outside the abdominal cavity and this suggestion of ritualistic positioning is another misleading fact started by ripper researchers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Michael can I ask you a question. Who do you think killed Mary and why?

[Darryl Kenyon]

If the killer showed anatomical knowledge but didn't remove any organs from Annie and Kate, what knowledge did he show?

[Trevor Marriott]

No. I'm seeing what I read in the surviving court and newspaper reports.But nobody ever mentions surgical skill, which is surely the crux of the matter. On that point, all three doctors involved in the Eddowes case (Sequeira, Brown and Saunders) saw no expertise in the handiwork.

We are not talking specifically about surgical skill we are talking about anatomical knowledge which was present in the murders of Chapman and Eddowes and this was highlighted by the doctors. This had to be present if the killer did remove the organs at the crime scene.

With regards to Kelly there was no mention of the killer having any anatomical knowledge in being able to locate or remove the organs. In fact quite the contrary, her body was treated like a butchers carcass.

But like i said previous if you remove the organ removal at the crime scenes from the equation then it could be said that the three murders could be connected.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok thanks for clarifying. Im not going to debate i just have a couple of questions.

Are all the murders by different people or are some by common hand?

Who were the organs extracted by?

And for what purpose?

All answers in my original post

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

killer did not have enough time in Mitre Sq to effect the removals. New research confirms this

I happen to think the contemporary theories that she might have been killed somewhere else and brought there to be possible Trevor. But I dont believe she was left there with her kidney and partial uterus intact and in place, that would have been done before they dropped her. Maybe thats how the apron section came to be separated from the main body of cloth, they rolled her out of a carriage and her clothing got caught on something...having to be torn and cut free. This venue did have a carriage size entrance to it. And neither beat cop was in that entrance.

[Michael W Richards]

1.Perhaps 1st and only opportunity to kill indoors?

So, he didnt know the stable was empty in Dutfields Yard, that many buildings in Mitre Square were unoccupied? And what about the evidence based on C1 and C2 that he kills strangers outdoors?

2.There is evidence - Hutchinson. Whether or not you think it to be credible evidence is another matter, but evidence it most certainly is.


Its just a statement, one that was taken seriously for a while...then not so much.

3. Mutilation not confined to the abdomen.

That was the focus in C1 and C2. Of course if you buy the Canonical Group as is, C3 is sure a one cut mystery isnt it? Kate is the first one to have many superfluous cuts.

4. Younger certainly but do we know by how much? Kelly claimed to be 25. Can we be sure she wasn't 30 or so? Not until we get a proven identity. Also, did the killer select older women or just take what was available? It's unknowable.

No, its eminently knowable in C1 and C2 Bridewell, he took the opportunity that presented itself to him, prey alone and wanting to go into the shadows with him.

5. What else would he do? Drag her out into Millers Court?

He wouldnt have gone into a tiny dead end courtyard looking for streetwalkers in the first place.

6.Nobody has to say it though. On this occasion the murder took place indoors. We don't know why. You're right in saying that there is no real evidence to substantiate the views expressed, but there's no real evidence to support the alternatives either - never can be because we don't know who killed these women or why. The differences between the Kelly murder and the others are essentially one difference. This one was indoors. The risks were different; the opportunities were different; the options were different; the amount of available time was different. I think the last point is critical.


I think youll note that I suggested that as one of the staple arguments for the way over the top actions in room 13,... he had the time. My point has always been on this counter argument that where is it indicated he wanted more time? He had it with Stride didnt he? Cut her between 12:46-56 supposedly? Louis didnt arrive until 1am...supposedly. Theres a few minutes, why not do as much as put her on her back in preparation...he may have done all that was done to Kate in about the same time. Less even. Maybe the rush was the possibility of getting caught...maybe the cutting was less thrilling than the risk.

7. Perhaps there should be a canonical group; perhaps not. Different people have different opinions as to which victims were killed by the same individual. Perhaps someone may argue that each victim had a different killer. It's all speculation based on what we know. For me the alternative to a connection is two or more people killing and mutilating women in the same area and at the same time. That's not impossible but it's the less likely alternative.

A familiar and common philosophy, and riddled with a complacence I find fascinating. Discard all that doesnt fit and presume only one man fits the activities. Something that is provably wrong by the other 8 or 9 females in the same unsolved Murders File, including preceding and overlapping Torso murders....by someone indoors, with time to do what he wanted. Fits your idea about Marys injuries. Maybe Torso Man killed Mary. Maybe Jack killed Alice, but he didnt kill Liz or Mary.

8.Has anyone on these boards ever suggested drooling madmen being involved?

..you havent noticed?

The Canonical Group is an outdated concept that needs to be retired. Unsolved murders seemingly connected by throat cuts and mutilations would make the Canonical Group 3 anyway, not 5.

[Abby Normal]

You have it all wrong

canonical five all not killed by the same hand

organs not removed by the killer at the crime scene

No organs taken from Kelly Insp Reid and others plus newspapers also confirm this

The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes taken to two different mortuaries both left for 12 hours before post mortems found organs missing.

Mortuaries visited on a daily basis by bona fide medical personnel to lawfully acquire organs under The Anatomy Act for research

Organs removed by bona fide medical personnel for research during that 12 hour window, (Perhaps acting unlawfully as the bodies should not have been tampered with) this explains the anatomical knowledge as seen by the doctors when carrying out the post mortems.

The uterus from both Chapman and Eddowes were removed using two different procedures, suggesting two different persons were responsible, and thus rules out butchers and slaughter men

killer did not have enough time in Mitre Sq to effect the removals. New research confirms this

If you want more on all of the aforementioned it can be found in my book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott-ebook/dp/B06ZY63JXJ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541631616&sr=8-1&keywords=trevor+marriott

I do not intend to get involved in further heated debates on these matters. This has all been gone through before except for some new stuff relating to the above which is in the book, and I really now dont have the time to sit here day and night like some, and have it become an obsession. So I will be spending less time here.

Some are never going to accept anything new that goes against what has previously been accepted without question, but that's life. does it bother me, no. I am happy to stand by the results of this whole investigation, and big enough to take all the flak that goes with it its just water of a ducks back.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok thanks for clarifying. Im not going to debate i just have a couple of questions.

Are all the murders by different people or are some by common hand?

Who were the organs extracted by?

And for what purpose?

[Michael W Richards]

1. If you think that Mary was killed by another hand you are going to have to believe that there was another serial killer/mutilator out on the loose who had killed before.

I dont see any reason to imagine that Marys killer was a "serial" killer/mutilator at all. I do see anger and curiosity in that room though.

2.Someone who was killing for the first time with Mary being the target just does not wash. He would have had to have a degree of planning to make it look like Jack [thus organized].

What planning? He could have known she now lived alone, thats it. Planning to make it look like Jack is never what Ive suggested here, making it appear as if the serial mutilator on the loose did it is. He killed her angrily. But the rest of the mutilations seem like time killing to me. Without any focus. Just to deface the corpse.

3. Think about it, with it being his first murder he would be in a state of panic. Yes, perhaps he would cut her throat and stomach, maybe even gash her face and maybe even throw some of Mary's insides around to make it look like Jack. But would he really spend all that time ripping the poor woman to pieces? I doubt it.


If he was just venting on that person, why would he stop? Fatigue? Slippery floor? The candle goes out? Or could it be when he was satisfied the deceased was "ripped".

4.But Jack would, given the fact that he was almost caught in the act in at least two murders and it didn't put him off murdering not long after. He would feel rather comfortable in the seclusion of a private room.

How do we know what his "comfortable" environment was Darryl? Seems to me the man who killed Annie was ok outdoors and exposed, in near darkness, with a stranger who was alone and encouraging men to take them somewhere private for street sex. I dont see where you can say he was almost caught twice before either....what murders? No-one ever saw anyone leaving any scene.

5. Comfortable enough to even make perhaps, the embers of a fire into a large one. Can't really see Barnett, Fleming or anyone else who might wish to murder Mary taking that chance.

There is only an opinion the fire was "large", based on the assumption that the kettle spout was melted off that night by a hot fire. The room was dark at 1:30, why would anyone start a large fire later, when to work on the body on the bed required them to put their back towards the door and windows. Its seems more probable the spout was heated off before that night. And we dont know the other Joe was Flemming, its been suggested by some, and proven by none. The other Joe "treated Mary poorly" at times. How poorly did he treat the young woman, we know she could street fight...did he already reveal himself to her as violent and dangerous?

I only seek to point out Darryl that you are using an opinion to debate an opinion, there are no facts in the above to contradict the notion that Marys killer was not Jack the Ripper.

[Bridewell]

You must have meant more evidence Caz, because the square peg and round hole analogy is certainly apt based on what we know:

-indoor kill-1st and only

Perhaps 1st and only opportunity to kill indoors?

-no evidence victim met killer soliciting

There is evidence - Hutchinson. Whether or not you think it to be credible evidence is another matter, but evidence it most certainly is.

-no focus on female abdomen

Mutilation not confined to the abdomen.

-known to be in love triangle at the time.

Barnett & who else?

-15 years or more younger than preceding victims

Younger certainly but do we know by how much? Kelly claimed to be 25. Can we be sure she wasn't 30 or so? Not until we get a proven identity. Also, did the killer select older women or just take what was available? It's unknowable.

-had flesh cut from thighs to the bone

Opportunity not previously available perhaps?

-left uterus behind

We don't know why.

-did not leave body in public view, actually prevented any easy access to it.

What else would he do? Drag her out into Millers Court?

The plethora of things that were unique in the Kelly murder have often been explained by arguments such as "well, he finally had a private venue"..."or he lost his mind committing this murder"...neither of which are anything substantiated by any real evidence. Who says outdoors weren't his objective? Who says he changed from stranger to stranger encounters with actively working prostitutes to intimate killing in the victims own private room?

Nobody has to say it though. On this occasion the murder took place indoors. We don't know why. You're right in saying that there is no real evidence to substantiate the views expressed, but there's no real evidence to support the alternatives either - never can be because we don't know who killed these women or why. The differences between the Kelly murder and the others are essentially one difference. This one was indoors. The risks were different; the opportunities were different; the options were different; the amount of available time was different. I think the last point is critical.

All of the malarkey that attempts to connect Mary...and also Liz...with the women who were killed by someone who posed as a client and then attacked them outdoors amounts to a pile of speculation that is used to create a Canonical Group.

Perhaps there should be a canonical group; perhaps not. Different people have different opinions as to which victims were killed by the same individual. Perhaps someone may argue that each victim had a different killer. It's all speculation based on what we know. For me the alternative to a connection is two or more people killing and mutilating women in the same area and at the same time. That's not impossible but it's the less likely alternative.

The women who we don't know were soliciting at the time of their murders had dumped lovers that same week or shown less than alledged commitment to their partners. That in and of itself leave room for motives that do not include drooling madmen.[

Has anyone on these boards ever suggested drooling madmen being involved?